Q.Doesn't
the well documented evolution of a new species of wallaby in Hawaii
provide some excellent support for the evolutionary theory of punctuated
equilibrium?

A.How one interprets evidence is always
going to be greatly effected by ones presuppositions.The example of the rapid
"evolution" of what is known as the Kalihi Rock Wallaby on the island
of Oahu, Hawaii
is a textbook example of this principle.To demonstrate this, it's important to first explain the issues involved
in this interesting situation.

First,
let's consider the Kalihi Rock Wallaby.An
article titled "Instant Evolution" was published in 1982.*"How the wallaby population got to Hawaii
in the first place is well known.The
animals are all descendants of a single pair of Australian wallabies that fled
from a Hawaiian zoo in 1916. . . , the wallabies are now estimated to have
grown to several hundred in number."(In the 21 years since 1982 the population is probably even larger
today.)What is strange is that the
Hawaiian wallabies are very different in color and size from the Australian
wallabies of today.

The
scientist studying these wallabies, James Lazell, Jr., offered two possible
explanations.One is known as the "founder
effect."Since the entire island population
descended from the same pair, any peculiar genetic traits the escaped pair
possessed would be uniformly passed on to all their succeeding
generations.In other words, if the
wallabies that escaped from the Hawaiian zoo happened to be smaller and lighter
than the average wallaby, all their descendants on the island
of Oahu, being isolated from the
wallabies in Australia,
would be smaller and lighter than the average Australian wallabies.The second possibility Lazell noted was this.

The creatures' physiology might simply be the result of
remarkably rapid evolution.Those
wallabies who were smaller and lighter in color--and thus better suited to the
Hawaiian environment--would have a better chance at survival and reproduction.If (this) is the case, the wallabies'
adaptation to their new environment was not only swift but extraordinarily
thorough.Lazell reports that not only
did the animals' external appearance change, so did the amino acid structure of
at least one of their liver enzymes, which would have helped them safely feed
on otherwise toxic plants on Oahu.The question
remains:how did the wallabies evolve in
what amounts to a mere eye blink in time? . . . Says Lazell, "To evolve
into an entirely new species in only sixty generations . . . that's pretty
spectacular."

There are three
important observations to note concerning Lazell's explanations.

1)Designating a
population of organisms a new "species" is an arbitrary assignment on
the part of the scientist.2)The possibility of a "founder effect"
being the cause of the Hawaiian wallaby's different physiology cannot be ruled
out.3)The statement that "the amino acid structure of at least one of
their liver enzymes" changed, i.e. mutated, can only be speculation on
Lazell's part.Later in this article,
we'll consider the possibility that some liver enzyme/s mutated.

The second
issue we need to consider is what is punctuated equilibrium?The late Stephen Jay Gould was a major
proponent of this evolutionary hypothesis.In 1979 (120 years after The
Origin of Species was published) Steven Stanley published Macroevolution, a major work supporting
punctuated equilibrium.In Macroevolution Stanley
states, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence
offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid (pg.
39)."And the situation has not
changed over the last 25 years.There
simply are no fossils of transitional forms, "missing links," to
verify the explanation that, e.g. wormlike animals evolved into clams and crabs
and ultimately fish, etc., or that fish evolved into land animals.

With no
evidence in the fossil record to demonstrate the transition of creatures from
one major form to another, evolutionary scientists (paleontologists in particular)
have proposed this phenomenon called punctuated equilibrium.The term is fairly self-descriptive.The proposal is that over the vast majority
of time, evolution essentially does not occur, i.e. the diversity of
life remains in a general state of equilibrium.However, this state of equilibrium is
infrequently punctuated by a flurry
of structural changes in certain forms of life, and new categories of living
organisms burst onto the scene.An
example would be the development of the complex shapes and arrangements of the
bones of the terrestrial vertebrate forelimb.From 3 small bones in a fish's fin (which were similar in structure to simple
vertebrae) the humerus (the single upper arm bone), radius and ulna (the two
lower arm bones) are believed to have formed.These arm bones, and the attendant muscles and ligaments, enabled the
transition from swimming in water (fish) to crawling on land
(amphibians/reptiles).This
understanding is held in spite of a complete lack of evidence showing anything
like the bones of the fish's fin changing
step by step into the bones of an arm.The hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium then explains that the step by
step changes can't be found because they did not exist.At the "punctuation point" in
history, massive mutations must have occurred in the crucial fish
population.Such mutations were
detrimental to most individuals, but in the case of one--actually it would have
to be two, a male and female--the structural changes produced functional
arms!These arms were very advantageous,
and from these "lucky" mutants, the entire realm of terrestrial
vertebrates evolved.

It is
obvious that such changes from "fins to fingers" involve large
amounts of added genetic information.Information encoded in the DNA that must instruct the developing embryo
how to grow the bones, ligaments, muscles, tendons, circulatory and nervous
tissues required for an arm--actually two pairs, front and rear--to function in
a coordinated fashion. Punctuated
equilibrium requiresthat large amounts of genetic
information spontaneously, by chance, be generated in some individual/s.The mutations result in major increases in
the complexity of the structure of the organism's form, and these changes, being
advantageous, are passed on to increasing numbers of surviving offspring which
look and have capabilities that are quite different from their grandparents.

Now
consider the example of the Kalihi Rock Wallaby.Its apparent change in size and color in no
way represents an increase in genetic information producing an increase in the complexity
of the animal's form.The more
interesting and significant difference between the Hawaiian and Australian
wallabies is the Hawaiian wallaby's ability to eat plants poisonous to an
Australian wallaby.Lazell claims that
some liver enzyme/s changed.I have
searched the literature extensively (so I readily admit, documentation may
exist which I simply did not find); it is not known why the plants on Oahu
are not toxic to the Hawaiian wallabies.It could be they have developed immunity to the toxin due to increased
production of antibodies which combat the poison.That does not qualify as an increase in
genetic information any more than dwarfism or gigantism.It is more likely, however, that the cause is
the mutation of a liver enzyme as Lazell suggests.But what happens in such instances is the
mutation causes the enzyme to lose its ability to function.The development of antibiotic resistance in
bacteria is a common example of this phenomenon.Poisonous foods are usually poisonous as a
result of some toxic by-product they release when digested.If some liver enzyme of the Hawaiian wallaby
mutated so that it no longer metabolizes the substance/s in the Hawaiian plants
that produce poisonous by-products, it was a very beneficial mutation to the
wallaby, but it is not because of some new genetic information.In fact, beneficial as it may be, the wallaby
lost some information.It is
genetically less complex than its ancestors.Therefore, although the changes occurred so rapidly that they were, in
Lazell's words, "pretty spectacular," the changes which have occurred
between the Hawaiian and Australian wallaby do not constitute the kind of evidence
required to support the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

If someone
already presupposes the truth of
evolution and punctuated equilibrium in particular, it is easy to see how they
would quickly interpret the example of the Kalihi Rock Wallaby as evidence for
their belief.The focus is on the
rapidity of change in the organism.However, given what punctuated equilibrium entails, the example of the
Hawaiian wallaby does not support the punctuated equilibrium model for
evolution.BUT,amazingly (!) given
a presupposition that the entire diversity of life on earth has resulted from
adaptations of all the kinds that God
created only thousands (not millions) of years ago, the example of the
Hawaiian wallaby can be interpreted in a radically different way.In fact, the Kalihi Rock Wallaby is an
excellent example of what is predicted by a creation model for the production
of new species--very rapid adaptation of the wallaby kind resulting in a new species of wallaby
("species" being a very subjective category assigned by some
scientists.)The new species is better
suited to survive in its peculiar environment than its "down under"
cousins, but it possesses no new genetic information.The Kalihi Rock Wallaby is still just a
wallaby, so . . . "Gooday Mate!" . . . or is it "Aloha!"